Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 19, 2013 6:30am-7:01am PDT

6:30 am
which move northward along the lot line on the west have grown vigorously and tower over the resident roofline. here's a better shot. you can see the size of it right there with the roofline being be there. you you can see you get a feeling for size anyway of the trees. their planned on the mini lot line which are adjacent to the private property and consequentially they peer over the rooflines. you can see right there the root
6:31 am
systems have uplifted the walkway and a building foundation next door. here we go a shot at the looking at the trees from the resident property wall right there and with the tops of those trees above the roofs they present greater sale areas. their bound to have their tops blown out which means their toppings tops break off they can drop 20 feet or more from the tops and a can create enormous
6:32 am
damage and injury. looking at ahead those are the issues we see for the trees. were the trees to remain there redwoods two through 5 will continue to grow in height and create additional issues the city would be like this in each case. it will further uplift the adjacent pathway and compromises the foupgz. you can see when you look at let me receive back to this is my opening photograph of the mini park. this large tree right here is a
6:33 am
redwood. it's a towering much larger and older then the ones we have on the parkland. it's a privately held in the next property owner it's his redwood and this redwood - here's a color so the o shot to give you an idea of how large it is. this redwood has a large burrow coming out of the fence and this burrow is the roots that extends under the pathway here's a shot that is lifting up the brick packet. here's is a shot looking at sufrt street you can see the breakage of the pathway. so when i talk about the lift
6:34 am
this is what i've referring to. the root systems will infill trait the pathway that could damage the adjacent property and the city will be responsible. with the underscore tree the following outcomes have the reasonable predictability. this is from the wood rot that is compromising the trees core structure will cause tree failure. it will fall in the direction of lean and fall across the sidewalk into sutter street and pedestrians could be in danger. it could rip out the sewer line and the city will be liable for all those damages and injuries.
6:35 am
consequentially those being the issues, however, we don't wish to leave this without suitable tree mravnt so we're going to gather input from the neighbors and public on the tree placating plan we anticipate will include the following factors. selecting species that will compliment the area and that have the right size growth and the species that compliment the park landscape. with that. that concludes my prepared racks i'll be happy to answer any questions from my presentation
6:36 am
>> thank you. commissioners do we have any questions and a yes, thank you. i'd be interested to know what the schedule is for the process it sounds good >> once we complete it informational project we'll look at the forestry work scheduled and look at it reposting the trees with a thirty day notice and undertaking this within 3 ms. >> thank you very much. can you tell me a little bit more about your community process. i frequently visit this park and i was never informed of any kind community process about the remove of those trees. i'm one of the people who asked mr. frye to give a presentation. i talked about the community
6:37 am
process. what kind of community process is available to the residents so we had notices about the remove of trees to provide some process to the residents 3 live there >> i'll talk about it in two forms. i mentioned 2003 we did a process that was published community meetings and was published in the newspaper of the 2003 process. the one we've undertaken over the last several months basically was precipitated by our postings of the remove and which gave notice of who you should contact if you have concerns about the postings. so the process was a little bit
6:38 am
more ad hoc and less formal then posted meetings. but we would meet with the cottage row residents and pass e-mail around regarding in terms of even if publishing the pros and cons and the rationale and receiving the comments back. so i do want to be clear there were not advertised and postings beatings for this month recent effort by as the the reefforttion that will be posted meetings and a way to have the people's idea for replacement species >> i would encourage you to be as board as possible with your notification. a that's the only green space we
6:39 am
have along sutter street. you can go up the hill but most folks don't want to make that trek. just out of the curiosity when they were encouraged to plant those redwoods and many voted against this does park and rec have some kind of safety policy that says those things will happen even though it's of interest to you as a community happens in it if you knew it would cause serious litigation why? >> this was back in 1993 i hate
6:40 am
the response i'm giving you but we don't have a written policy on this. we rely on our opinions. we've got talents in the department. i can't account for back in 1993 our staff at the time gave the go ahead with the only advise that those be for species choices and i actually can't comment further. now we won't make this advise but withhold the approval and so there's something in place right now >> that's correct. >> is it possible for the
6:41 am
landmark to extend to this area? >> how do those things happen. >> tim frye department staff. it could occur the commission would have to make a decision in opening up the designation and including other boundaries of the designation to address this issue. as you may recall i believe it was one supervisor a number of years ago reopened this designation to allow for more oversight of park future within the park. when we reintroduced the amendment a number of years ago we just focused on basic street furniture and didn't extend to
6:42 am
any other things. they could then be a final vote by the board of supervisors on whether or not to include that as part of the designation >> xhirths any other questions for mr. kern seeing none, we'll open it up for public comment. i have one speaker card. marvin. >> i've lived adjacent to the park for approximately thirty years. i've taken it upon myself to do a historic study from 1875 and beyond. i also was regretable part of the neighborhood so i'll be happy to answer all the
6:43 am
questions in the temp about the site. i support of the remove of the redwoods. i think that just on the merits of the presentation we've just heard obviously. but things have gone back and forth with the contingent working with the department we've had clean up crews and at this time we were a volunteer group the park just delivered the trees and we planned them so guilty as charged. we had a landscape architect in the neighborhood who was working pro-beyond for us and came up with this beautiful plan. i think this is not my expertise
6:44 am
they looked good for a couple of years. it was a mistake an accident that's how we got into this situation. prior to this we got everybody and it was fairly broadly invited in the meeting we got a proposal to get a grant which we didn't get. but we had 20 or thirty people getting together notes and everything. so everybody gave their opinions but after that we didn't get the grant and some of us got together to try to get the
6:45 am
redwoods removed. realistically you've got to start with the redwood trees are gone. so i wholeheartedly support the remove of the trees and would be happy to answer any questions on the history of the park >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm rose. i don't speak for the forestry board but i hold a seat. we haven't had a presentation from the effort commission. but nonetheless i'd like to say a few things about the redwood trees. i can see what the problems would be because they have
6:46 am
shallow roots and they go through the sewer line. but those trees are in the chapter code 16 which are 16 inches and their within the public right-of-way so anything that's being planned there i'd like to see the historic use of those trees. i've gone back to the 1900s as you probably already, you know, it was used by japanese immigrants because they were not lout to hold land and most of the folks then were japanese immigrants they grew there can be age and other things. so thank you very much >> thank you.
6:47 am
>> thank you. next speaker, please hi katherine howard i'm up here as co- latter damage. however, last time at the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods there was a presentation by the forestry alliance and they talked about how the canopy is diminished in the city and county of san francisco. the effort alliance said the park is more interested in removing trees than protecting them. i don't know. and the trees are given a bad rap about falling brandishes. my comments are general but i
6:48 am
want to give you some hints about things to think about when people want to remove trees one is the sewer line if the sewer line is sealed the roots don't know they're there. so if they get into the pipelines that's a problem. sometimes people say there's all this vegetation near the park the park was created so you can't see the traffic. trees on the roofline gosh that sound like a good idea who wants
6:49 am
trees that you can see the above everything. one thing not mentioned is proen if a tree is heavy leaning it could be prone. there doesn't seem like there's much effort to mitigate that. and the last one is the liability issue. fblg we don't want people injured but when it comes to liability we self-insure for everything in the city and i think our trees are worth the financial liability. if we try to protect against every single thing we're going to have a lot of concrete and not a nice place to live
6:50 am
>> any other speakers? >> hello, i'm mary king and i live in lambert and was part of the planting. we made a big mistake on the redwoods. i remember one of the department members said i without the possibility of parole plant those trees there. the one tree i was successful was to get a buff japanese maple planned. i would ask we continue to have japanese maples 34r57bd there are that the key thing about the presentation is that she hadn't been at the site. and anybody coming to that site it was teeny, tiny.
6:51 am
we know about victorian houses. a lady rank our doorbell and we had a neighbor who would throw candies up on the roof. so i'm not 1 hundred present sure that property was used for the 'cause she said. we have a neighbor who sold their vejsz in a farmer's market on a small space near there.
6:52 am
so if anybody has any questions call me. thanks >> thank you. >> hello, i'm trish. i live at one cottage row. i really appreciate mr. kernz presentation. i think it was debate and to her and on point. i think that there's a consensus among the cottage row residents that will support his violative as well and a thank you >> thank you any other speakers on this item. seeing none, we'll close public comment. okay. no other comments we'll move on >> the market sale from publically annoyed properties. informational presentation and a commissioners good afternoon dan with the planning department.
6:53 am
about a year ago commissioners we came to you with an overview. one of the issues we talked about during that presentation were the 3 and a half million or so secret - square feet. and on one hand the sale of that quantity of p dr could provided the revenue meanwhile for the rehabilitation and maintenance of landmark buildings. and on the other hand, it could cause a disruption that could have negative impacts on the t dr program. earlier this year we got data on the market analysis to better
6:54 am
see and we have key members from our department here who have spent numerous amounts of time for particularly publicly owned t d railroad. they're here today to present their finding for you and with permission >> thank you davrn. good afternoon, commissioners. can everyone see the power point in front of you. okay. so we're going to give you an overview of the presentation and a review of the t dr and the purpose of our study. we look back at the t dr
6:55 am
activities since the program inception in 1980 that. we looked at t dr programs in other cities and a look at the transactions of the markets in san francisco because the t drs are unique and we want the recommends on the programs to refine it and to make recommendations of the publicly owned properties. just a quick review of the t drs. it's from a preservation property to ultimately, the it
6:56 am
updated property. the term also referred to the limits. under the t dr program landmarks go consult t dr folks to make sure the code is being followed. the purpose of our study was to review the market and our method daughter-in-law was to review the database. it was a very expensive database. we also looked at body the price of t dr but it was difficult to find base it wasn't until the end of 2010 so that's something now we can get information on. so we interviewed brokers and
6:57 am
other t dr market stakeholders to get information. we looked programs in other cities. we were guided by a committee led by the planning department. and in addition to planning staff we also had the real estate division and the controllers office and the office of capital planning. i'd like to thank tim frye and others who spent a lot of time with us answering our questions and how has the promising program worked in practice? >> the number certified is 1.8 million. there were there are others that could be certified. so that t dr was certified from 1 hundred and telephone buildings and the $2.7 million
6:58 am
has been used ton 34 development projects it involves 24 buildings. so of the 32 buildings 80 percent of 26 buildings were newly constructed and the other 6 were to do expansion. so i'll give you the range of sizes those have been certified you can see quite the range. the smallest has been 8 hundred and the larger is from the annex. 3 thousand 9 hundred ways used on the millennium tower.
6:59 am
we have to accommodates the projects 13 required one transaction and the others required other tractions per development. we had the list of those buildings that are certified t dr in the apexes you may be interested in. okay. so what does the market look like. this is 20000 and in the light blue is the number of unused buildings in existence. in no year it dips below 2 million t dr that have been certified and unused. it tends to fluctuate with the
7:00 am
market value 2005 and 2008 are peak usage t dr for the developments. most traksdz have been in the range of 18 to $25. again, this is the prices we're able to find. based on that we're saying the co co- related tractions have occurred. looking at the composition we're focusing on demand. the t dr has created a significant supply. there's 2 had the 6 million that hadn't think used but brown there's about